Skip to main content
Glama
aweher

invoiceninja-mcp

by aweher
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

invoiceninja_list_invoices

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query and list invoices from Invoice Ninja with filters for status, client, date range, tags, sorting and pagination. Use invoice IDs for full records.

Instructions

List invoices from Invoice Ninja with filtering, sorting and pagination. client_status values: all, draft, paid, unpaid, overdue, cancelled. extra_filters keys: date_range ('YYYY-MM-DD,YYYY-MM-DD' on the document date, or 'due_date,YYYY-MM-DD,YYYY-MM-DD' for another column), date (on/after YYYY-MM-DD), due_date (on/before YYYY-MM-DD), number, project_id, private_notes, payable (client_id); created_between / updated_between ('YYYY-MM-DD,YYYY-MM-DD'), tag_ids (comma separated), assigned_user_ids. Related names are resolved automatically (client_name). Use invoiceninja_get_invoice with an id from this list for the full record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number, starting at 1
sortNoSort as 'column|asc' or 'column|desc', e.g. 'date|desc'
fieldsNoJSON format only: return just these top-level fields (id is always included), e.g. ['number', 'client_name', 'balance', 'due_date']
filterNoFree-text search across the main columns (number, name, contacts, notes…)
statusNoLifecycle filter, comma separated: active, archived, deleted (e.g. 'active' to skip archived and deleted records)
includeNoExtra relations to embed, comma separated (e.g. 'payments,activities')
per_pageNoRecords per page (1-100)
client_idNoOnly records of this client (hashed id)
client_statusNoBusiness status filter, comma separated; one or more of: all, draft, paid, unpaid, overdue, cancelled
extra_filtersNoAdditional API query filters as name -> value (see the tool description)
response_formatNo'markdown' (default) for a readable summary, 'json' for complete machine-readable data (empty fields removed)markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: it documents the otherwise opaque extra_filters key vocabulary and formats, and notes that related names (client_name) are auto-resolved. It does not, however, describe result ordering, page limits, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema states.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose before the dense reference material, and every sentence is functional rather than filler. The extra_filters catalogue is long, but it is necessary detail the schema delegates here, so it earns its space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must carry the contract, and it does reasonably: it flags the markdown/json response_format choice implicitly via filtering capabilities and explains the get_invoice follow-up for full records. An agent has enough to call this correctly, though return-shape details (what the markdown summary contains) remain implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully exceeds it: the extra_filters parameter's schema entry merely says 'see the tool description,' and the description supplies the full key list, date-range syntax, and column semantics for it. It also restates the client_status enum values, which adds redundant but confirming detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List invoices from Invoice Ninja') plus the supported capabilities (filtering, sorting, pagination). It reads clearly as the list-side counterpart to invoiceninja_get_invoice, so an agent can place it among the many list/get siblings without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: 'Use invoiceninja_get_invoice with an id from this list for the full record.' That is a clear when-to-use-next rule, though it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list/search siblings like invoiceninja_search or invoiceninja_list_records.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools